In wake of fire, Wareham family caught in FEMA flood restrictions

A house fire four months ago caused major damage, but it's a congressional vote two years ago that is causing more pain for the property owners.

CHRISTOPHER G. SHOTT

WAREHAM — A house fire four months ago caused major damage, but it's a congressional vote two years ago that is causing more pain for the property owners.

After the Pardi family — father Todd, mother Charlene and daughter Erin — saw their Fairfield Drive home devastated by a November fire, they thought their troubles had eased when the insurance company agreed to pay for extensive repairs to the roof and interior.

However, their relief was short-lived when the family learned renovations could not be approved by the town's Inspectional Services Department because it wouldn't comply with federal flood requirements.

The Pardi home is in a "high-risk" VE zone for flooding, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which operates the National Flood Insurance Program.

As a result, the family needs to raise the elevation of the house by several feet — ostensibly by installing stilts — to attain what FEMA considers a "base flood elevation."

The Pardis said the additional costs of accomplishing that far exceed their financial resources.

"The insurance company paid us basically what we'll need to cover repairs, but we don't have the extra $150,000 to comply with the FEMA regulations," Todd Pardi said. "Ultimately, we may end up homeless unless the flood plain map is changed."

The Pardis are now living in an 18-by-60-foot trailer parked in their driveway, while their home remains vacant and still scarred by the fire. However, insurance covers the trailer rental only through November, at which time the family must seek new living quarters unless repairs to their home are completed.

Built in 1986 and purchased by the Pardis in 2001, the house was formerly located in a FEMA-labeled AE zone in Wareham, but was moved into the VE zone in 2012 with Congress's passage of the Biggert-Waters Act. That legislation also increased flood insurance premiums for homeowners and business owners located in flood plain zones in coastal areas throughout the country.

The Pardis said they paid $2,200 two years ago for flood insurance; that jumped to $7,700 last year. More significant, however, was FEMA's decision to redraw the flood plain maps for Wareham.

The rationale for the Biggert-Waters Act was to spread accelerating costs for flood-induced damages along America's shorelines to property owners in those locales, and to discourage further building in high-risk areas.

Todd Pardi said he has filed a formal request — a "letter of map amendment" — with FEMA to return the family's home to the previous flood zone. He said he expects a response within two months.

"Only our house and one of our neighbors' houses is located in the VE zone, while the rest of the neighborhood is still in the AE zone," Charlene Pardi said. "There are homes in this area closer to the water than ours that are still in the AE zone."

"The rules of the game have been changed on us after the game started," Todd Pardi said. "This house was built legally. It's just not right."

The Pardis are not alone in their plight.

Wayne Fostin, Fairhaven's building commissioner, said the owners of a home located on Wilburs Point suffered a fire "about two months ago" in a high-risk flood plain zone and are also required to go to extreme lengths to rebuild.

"Unfortunately, with where the house is located, FEMA says the owner has to raise the elevation of the house when rebuilding it," Fostin said. "It takes a lot of time and money to do the job."

Fostin stressed that local officials are essentially powerless to battle FEMA.

"If we don't comply with FEMA's regulations, they can come in and raise rates in the community," he said.